Using the Church's authority to prove the Church's authority?

[Non_Serviam]

To Peter, Angels and all the others who wonder why I kept repeating myself over and over and over:

THIS is why.

Perhaps Peter you could provide the poster some tutoring in Fides et Ratio?

That’s does it for me for the night. Take care all.

Re: Using the Church’s authority to prove the Church’s authority?

Friend, that is not a truthful or even logical question.

If I tell you I’m 9’11" tall, does that make it true? Of course not. Be specific and I /we can defend every doctrine and dogma of the RCC. If you don’r believe it, try us out? But please don’t knock what you don’t understand. It’s not nice and its not logical.

The Authority of “the church,” one assumes you mean the RCC, comes personaly and directly from God. Mt. 16:18;20 Jesus is God.

18* And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it. 19* ** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."/**

That is clear and specific. “Binding and lossening” were and continue to be Legal, contractual Binding, specifically as complete(unlimited and uninhibited) authority to GOVERN. Not much wiggle room in these words. In fact there is none!

That is God’s mandate to His ONLY church and His form of governance, the Popes. You don’t have to like it. obey it, or share that goodnews; but dear friends, its true, its fact, its real, and it does bind all of us

But don’t take my word for it, wait until Judgement day, and you can ask the one who said these words yourself. On second thought, you may wish to do that sooner than later:thumbsup:

God bless you, and grant you intrgity, truth and enlightenment.

 

[Peter_J]

I think there’s a world of different between having someone’s statements recognized as “probably right” and “potentially infallible”, don’t you?

I’m afraid I don’t really see the big deal about “potentially infallible” statements.

If I had lived in ancient Israel, and I heard my neighbor claiming to be a prophet and declaring a revelation from the Lord, then I could say that his words were a “potentially infallible” statement (which might someday be part of the Old Testament).

Does it? I don’t recall the Orthodox having made claims about the Patriarchs’ infallibility?

Doesn’t it? What was it that you criticized us (RCs) for? Wasn’t it for not telling you which papal statements are infallible?

Or perhaps I misunderstood you a little. If your criticism of the RCC is on the basis that some Catholics say e.g. “Unam Sanctum (1302) contained an infallible statement”, while other Catholics say “Unam Sanctum did not contain an infallible statement” …
… then I guess it makes sense that you don’t apply the same criticism to the EOs. (I.e. it’s not like some EOs are going around saying e.g. “In the 14th century, the Patriarch of Constantinople made an infallible statement” while other EOs are saying “In the 14th century, the Patriarch of Constantinople didn’t make an infallible statement”.) Generally, the Eastern Orthodox will say that there have been 7 Ecumenical Councils – each of which exercised infallibility – and leave it at that.

But that actually raises another criticism of the EOs, which I think has some merit: namely, isn’t it a bit suspicious that the last Ecumenical Council, according to the EOs, was in 787 – and hence that they do not claim to have had any Ecumenical Councils since the East-West split? Doesn’t that suggest that perhaps they can’t hold a truly Ecumenical Council without Rome? (Not trying to hijack the thread or anything. freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angelic012.gif)

 

[Eucharisted]

Non Serviam:

Here’s something to ponder about Church authority.

Authoriy, as I’m sure you’re aware, is given to someone or somethig by someone with greater authority. Now, invevitably, this would mean God is the Highest Authority, but, I do not want to get into a dicussion about God or His Authority; I’m just saying that, since all authority comes from someone higher, then there must be someone or something with eternity, infinite authority - though whether youu believe it’s God or the universe or something else, that is your opinion and I will respect it.

Now, since authority must come from something, the Church’s authority must come from something. If the Church claims its authority comes from itself - that is, that the authority of the Church proves the authority of the Church - then it would be claiming its authority is self-existent, and that would be quite a laughable claim to be making.

This is further realized when one thinks about the Church’s birth and her time in the Middle Ages. In her early years, when she was but an infant (I’m using that metaphorically), she was born into a world teeming with philosophy. It is from philosopy that we learn authoriy is not self-existent, and so, from a philosophical standpoint, the Church would be riducled. Saint Augustine, himself a philosopher, would have found a self-existent authority in the Church quite maddening, and would not have joined the Church if such a claim on authority were true. The same can be said of other philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas. In the Middle Ages, philosophy was “the next big thing” in the Church and everyone was studying it. It is interesting that no one ever challenged a notion of self-existent authority. Some could say it is because the Church surpressed those who challenged her, but this claim would go unfounded, as there is no evidence of it, nor are there any saints who testified to any sort of supression within the Church.

Returning to the young yearns of the Church, historians know that the Church came from Judaism, and the Apostles and Jesus were Jews. Now, in the face of opposition from Judaism, it would be nonsensical for the Church to claim her own authority, because the Jews and Romans alike would challenge such a claim - not to mention pagan philosophers would laugh at the Church’s authority being self-proven, and this belief could be used to harm the truth of Christianity. However, there is no known mention of such attacks on Church authority, so it would be safe to say that the Church never claimed self-proven authority.

The question is than: where did the Church get her authoriy? The answer: Jesus Christ, the God-Man. Since God alone is the Lord, He alone could make covenants with nations and peoples, so Jesus, in founding His Church, had to be God, or else the Church has no Divine Authority. If Jesus is not God, than Christianity is a fluke - but let us not get off track. Let us suppsoe that Jesus is God. So Jesus is God and Man, and His Authority is the authority of the Church. How can this be? Because the Church is His Body, as Scripture tells us. Now, not only dose the Church have Divine Authority, but, because she is the Body of Christ - and Christ is God and Man - she has human authority, ultimately, the Pope. This human authority, much like Jesus’ Humanity, is completely subject to the Divinity: the Church cannot pronounce lies or make stuff up regarding faith or morals, and God’s Spirit prevents her from such a feat, for the Spirit of truth leads the Church into all truths (the gift of infallibility).

Where dose the Pope get his authority? Well, he is the Sucessor of Peter, and Jesus gave to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. So the papal authority comes from Jesus Christ. Hence, the divine and human authority are united in the Diviniy. And since God is the Supreme Authority, we now know where the Church’s authority comes from. And since Scripture tells us the Church is the Body of Christ and Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and He would send the Spirit of Truth to lead the Church into all truths, the authority of the Church is based on Scripture. And since Scripture is divinely inspired, it is God Himself who speaks on behalf of the Church. In brief, the proof of the authority of the Catholic Church is in Scripture, the Word of God.

(c)

 

[Eucharisted]

Now, besides Scriptures, there are also miracles which confirm the divine origins of the Church, and the Lord performs them just as He performed miracles in His first coming to prove His Divinity. The miracles only happen to those who doubt something of faith, never to those who already believe something, because if the latter was the case then all miracles could be called human inventions; but if they happen to the person who doubts, then they must come from God, because, why would a man try to prove something he dosen’t believe in? To see if it is truly true or truly false? But he already knows it is false, so to speak. Now the miracles I speak of are not those performed by the apostles - I will get to that later - but rather, they are signs which God gave to certain people, independant of their willing for a miracle (this is in accordance with their disbelief and knowing that something is already false). Such miracles are numerous, so I will only confine myself to three common ones:

• Eucharist turning to human flesh and blood
• Smell of roses after praying the Rosary
• Apparitions (Lourdes and Fatima)

Now, miracles are personal matters, though they are not only meant for the person who recieves them but also for everyone in the world, as divine signs of the Church’s authority, and, ultimately, of God’s existence (for if the Church has divine authoirty, than God must exist). But because miracles are personal matters, their meaning is on a personal level, so I cannot tell you what the miracles mean, per se, but I can tell you what they would mean in light of the Church’s teachings:

• Jesus is in the Eucharist
• Mary is the Queen of the Rosary
• Immaculate Conception and Assumtion of Mary

Granted, this is only scratching the surface of miracles: more knowledge can be found by more research, and that is why I ask you to do research on these miracles - even go so far as to find evidence that they didn’t actually happen. Now, as I said, there are other miracles, those performed by the Apostles, and certainly these weren’t done with doubt but with faith, for Jesus had commanded them to perform them in His Name. These they perfomed for two reasons: to spread the Kingdom of God, and, thereby, preach the gospel (“The Kingdom of God is at hand!”); to prove the divine authority of the Church, ultimately imitating Jesus Christ, who Himself performed miracles to prove His Divinity, as I said before. And He commanded them to follow (imitate) Him, in no shorter words: “Deny thyself, take up thy cross daily, and follow Me.” Now, these verses can be interpreted differently and personally, but, just as we can eat all foods though not all is benefical for us, so too we can make all interpretations though not all is benefical for us. How dose one then intepret Scripture? I suppose this would make or break the Church’s claim of authority, too, not to mention the historicity of the gospels and of all the books of the New Testament. But, one can certainly interpret the Scriptures correctly, for the same Spirit who authored them has given a way to interpret them, and this way I have posted here.

If I have said anything improper, please correct me, for correction of sinners is a work of mercy. Thank you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s where we’re at now-using historical critical approaches to evidence to test the validity of that claim-feel free to join in.

I’ll contribute what I can…

Could you, in a nutshell, give me your reason for rejecting the Catholic Church as the one that Jesus promised to build in Matthew 16:18?

There are so many arguments…I’d rather focus on yours!

 

[Peter_J]

It’s that “nature of authority” point where we differ. If a student made such claims, there are two approaches the teacher could take:

1. The teacher could say “I am the teacher-I have the authority to say what is correct in this class and I say that’s wrong”
2. The teacher could show that their teaching is supported by evidence and proof and that their authority is to communicate this information and to support and assist the learners in acquiring and using the knowledge. The teacher doesn’t claim to validate the knowledge, but rather to communicate it.

The quotes I posted previously look a lot more like #1 to me than #2, although there would be elements of #2 displayed in pastoral activity.

For me, saying the Magisterium are the only people who can “authentically interpret” the Scriptures undercuts the use of Reason by others to understand them. (Reason being inductive or deductive investigation and interpretation of the Scriptures in this example)

Again I see the same basic problem: you’re not adequately distinguishing between a document claiming X, and a document claiming to be proof of X.

But I can somewhat see your point: the claim – even taken in and of itself – is a little peculiar. If you eventually came to accept said claim (regardless of how specifically you got to the point of accepting it), would that mean that, from that moment on, you basically forget about using your own powers of reason (because there wouldn’t be any need)? I’m quite sure that JPII would answer that question in the negative, but I want to brush up a little on Fides et Ratio before trying to elaborate.

P.S.

While under such a system people can study and memorize and reflect on Scripture in a devotional way-it seems that any sort of inductive or deductive exploration of them would be invalidated. I’ve seen a number of theological writings by ECF’s and such on here that varied from the typical Catholic pov dismissed with the phrase “He’s not part of the Magisterium”. (i.e. Aquinis on ensoulment rather than Origen on universal salvation which is a whole other order of magnitude)

You really like using the “I-heard-a-Catholic-say-such-and-such” form of argument, don’t you?

 

[Non_Serviam]

having given it some thought-allowing myself to get frustrated by the response of one individual while others have been very helpful wasn’t the best course of action-so I’m back for a bit

I’m afraid I don’t really see the big deal about “potentially infallible” statements.

If I had lived in ancient Israel, and I heard my neighbor claiming to be a prophet and declaring a revelation from the Lord, then I could say that his words were a “potentially infallible” statement (which might someday be part of the Old Testament).

The difference is in the attitude produced-if one thinks that someone is “probably right” there is still a good level of comfort in questioning something that is said when it doen’t appear to be correct.

OTOH if you believe your neighbour to be an OT prophet (or in possession of a charism of infallibility on occasion as part of their divine mandate to be the only valid interpretive body of a collection of writings) it might just lead to valid questions and criticisms not being made. So would statements like this one from the CCC:

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Claiming authority given to the Apostles to be heard God and telling people to be docile doesn’t seem to square with promoting a vigorous use of Reason by the faithful and leaving one’s statements open to discussion.

Doesn’t it? What was it that you criticized us (RCs) for? Wasn’t it for not telling you which papal statements are infallible?

Or perhaps I misunderstood you a little. If your criticism of the RCC is on the basis that some Catholics say e.g. “Unam Sanctum (1302) contained an infallible statement”, while other Catholics say “Unam Sanctum did not contain an infallible statement” …
… then I guess it makes sense that you don’t apply the same criticism to the EOs. (I.e. it’s not like some EOs are going around saying e.g. “In the 14th century, the Patriarch of Constantinople made an infallible statement” while other EOs are saying “In the 14th century, the Patriarch of Constantinople didn’t make an infallible statement”.) Generally, the Eastern Orthodox will say that there have been 7 Ecumenical Councils – each of which exercised infallibility – and leave it at that.

The issue is that if the claim is made that some statements are infallible, and it is clearly delineated which statements are included under that heading,then knowing which ones permits them to be scrutinized by those who question the doctrine and for those who have issues with other statements to discuss them, knowing that the statements may be incorrect.

In the example I gave with Unum Sanctam and the relevant parts of the CCC, the points I made were:

• to the best of my knowledge, neither document has been declared a product of an infallible statement
• the language in the documents renders them irreconcilable without clearly contradicting the plain meanings of the texts
• in spite of both these facts Catholics continue to mentally juggle both documents rather than saying one was incorrect

It is this sort of mental gymnastics that I lay at the feet of the claim to infallibility.

The Orthodox have been coming up in our discussion a lot of late, Peter-are you trying to foist me off on them?

But that actually raises another criticism of the EOs, which I think has some merit: namely, isn’t it a bit suspicious that the last Ecumenical Council, according to the EOs, was in 787 – and hence that they do not claim to have had any Ecumenical Councils since the East-West split? Doesn’t that suggest that perhaps they can’t hold a truly Ecumenical Council without Rome? (Not trying to hijack the thread or anything. freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angelic012.gif)

They would provide a better answer to this than I would.

 

[reccanboy]

That always interested me when Catholics claim that you cannot know the scriptures apart from the Church, yet when proving the truth of the Church, they QUOTE SCRIPTURE!

 

[w_stewart]

That always interested me when Catholics claim that you cannot know the scriptures apart from the Church, yet when proving the truth of the Church, they QUOTE SCRIPTURE!

The Catholics, most of the time, use the Bible as a proof when we face Protestants. That’s demonstrating to you that even the Bible does not favor the position of the Protestants.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Thanks for posting-it is an interesting approach to the question. In the interests of space I’ll be snipping a bit of your reply

Non Serviam:

Now, since authority must come from something, the Church’s authority must come from something. If the Church claims its authority comes from itself - that is, that the authority of the Church proves the authority of the Church - then it would be claiming its authority is self-existent, and that would be quite a laughable claim to be making.

The question is than: where did the Church get her authoriy? The answer: Jesus Christ, the God-Man. Since God alone is the Lord, He alone could make covenants with nations and peoples, so Jesus, in founding His Church, had to be God, or else the Church has no Divine Authority. If Jesus is not God, than Christianity is a fluke - but let us not get off track. Let us suppsoe that Jesus is God. So Jesus is God and Man, and His Authority is the authority of the Church. How can this be? Because the Church is His Body, as Scripture tells us. Now, not only dose the Church have Divine Authority, but, because she is the Body of Christ - and Christ is God and Man - she has human authority, ultimately, the Pope. This human authority, much like Jesus’ Humanity, is completely subject to the Divinity: the Church cannot pronounce lies or make stuff up regarding faith or morals, and God’s Spirit prevents her from such a feat, for the Spirit of truth leads the Church into all truths (the gift of infallibility).

Where dose the Pope get his authority? Well, he is the Sucessor of Peter, and Jesus gave to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. So the papal authority comes from Jesus Christ. Hence, the divine and human authority are united in the Diviniy. And since God is the Supreme Authority, we now know where the Church’s authority comes from. And since Scripture tells us the Church is the Body of Christ and Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and He would send the Spirit of Truth to lead the Church into all truths, the authority of the Church is based on Scripture. And since Scripture is divinely inspired, it is God Himself who speaks on behalf of the Church. In brief, the proof of the authority of the Catholic Church is in Scripture, the Word of God.(c)

I agree that authority comes from God, and that Jesus gave authority to His church. The questions are what is the extent of that authority? How is that authority to be used? and who, if anyone can claim that authority today?

The Catholic Church claims that it’s model of an infallible church with a Pope as the supreme leader of the faithful and chief teaching authority in concert with other Bishops is that New Testament authority. The church claims sole authority to interpret Scripture, to make pronouncements on faith and belief and to judge all the faithful.

When we look at the New Testament do we see this sort of authority? Do we read of Linus or Clement exercising this authority? Do other churches call Linus or Clement the Vicar of Christ? Do we have Apostolic teaching being disregarded in the 1st century as we do later when Victor is Bishop of Rome and claims the authority to do so?

The Magisterium says that these things are in Scripture and the ECF’s because their interpretation says they are-so it is the Magisterium’s interpretation that provides the basis for their claim to the authority of being sole interpreter.

That is circular. Now if we can find evidence from that period of that sort of authority being exercised, then we have escaped the circle-otherwise we are still in it until we Reason our way out of it.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’ll contribute what I can…

Could you, in a nutshell, give me your reason for rejecting the Catholic Church as the one that Jesus promised to build in Matthew 16:18?

There are so many arguments…I’d rather focus on yours!

I appreciate that-two good summaries of some of my issues would be found here and here.

And to be clear, if I had rejected the possibility, I wouldn’t be here.

 

[Eucharisted]

Thanks for posting-it is an interesting approach to the question. In the interests of space I’ll be snipping a bit of your reply

I agree that authority comes from God, and that Jesus gave authority to His church. The questions are what is the extent of that authority? How is that authority to be used? and who, if anyone can claim that authority today?

The Catholic Church claims that it’s model of an infallible church with a Pope as the supreme leader of the faithful and chief teaching authority in concert with other Bishops is that New Testament authority. The church claims sole authority to interpret Scripture, to make pronouncements on faith and belief and to judge all the faithful.

When we look at the New Testament do we see this sort of authority? Do we read of Linus or Clement exercising this authority? Do other churches call Linus or Clement the Vicar of Christ? Do we have Apostolic teaching being disregarded in the 1st century as we do later when Victor is Bishop of Rome and claims the authority to do so?

The Magisterium says that these things are in Scripture and the ECF’s because their interpretation says they are-so it is the Magisterium’s interpretation that provides the basis for their claim to the authority of being sole interpreter.

That is circular. Now if we can find evidence from that period of that sort of authority being exercised, then we have escaped the circle-otherwise we are still in it until we Reason our way out of it.

Okay. So you believe Jesus gave authority to His Church? I assume you mean the Catholic Church, but if I’m wrong, please correct me. Now, using the assumption that you’re referring to the Catholic Church, let me ask you this: Dose the Church have the authority to interpret the Scriptures by the power of the Holy Spirit? In other words, can the Church say what the Bible says?

If so, then the Church must has the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to give His Church, to lead the Church into all truths, including the truths which God wishes to tell us in His Scriptures;
If not, then the Church must not have the Holy Spirit, for only the Lord who authored Scriptures can interpret Scriptures, and if the Church cannot by the power of the Holy Spirit interpret Scripture, than it cannot be the Church of Christ.

Now, here is something else to ponder: Where dose Scripture come from? The answer is: It is from the Church’s Tradition. The Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, decided which books would belong in the Bible (“the canon of Scriptures”). And how dose this constitute Sacred Tradition? Because Sacred Tradition is the teachings and authority of the Apostles; hence, the Church has the authority to say which books belong to God’s Word - in other words, the Church has the authority to protect the Sacred Scriptures, and this authority comes from the Apostles (Sacred Tradition is also known as Apostolic Tradition). Now, if Scripture comes from Tradition, than how can one say the Church cannot interpret the Scripture?

Even from a conspiracy theory point of view, this makes sense, for a conspiracy theorist would say the Church crafted the Bible in such a fashion that it conforms completely to her teachings - no more, no less.

Of course, such a conspiracy theory would be incorrect, if Christ did found the Catholic Church, for He has made her infallible, and being infallible, she cannot error in faith or morals - and certainly the Scriptures are within the scope of faith and morals. Moreover, He has given the Church His Spirit, to lead her into all the truths within the pages of Scriptures.

Some would argue against so many safeguards against error - the Holy Spirit, the bishops, etc. - citing them as weaknesses, as human attempts to keep the Scripture inerrant. However, these safeguards, far from being of human origin, are of divien origin: they are the workings of the omnipotence of God, whom uses every means possible to keep His Church free from error and full of truth.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Again I see the same basic problem: you’re not adequately distinguishing between a document claiming X, and a document claiming to be proof of X.

But I can somewhat see your point: the claim – even taken in and of itself – is a little peculiar. If you eventually came to accept said claim (regardless of how specifically you got to the point of accepting it), would that mean that, from that moment on, you basically forget about using your own powers of reason (because there wouldn’t be any need)? I’m quite sure that JPII would answer that question in the negative, but I want to brush up a little on Fides et Ratio before trying to elaborate.

P.S.

You really like using the “I-heard-a-Catholic-say-such-and-such” form of argument, don’t you?

Peter,

The Catechism makes the claim that the Magisterium is the “only authentic interpreter” and offers no proof for that claim beyond its own claimed authority authority. I’m not certain why you label this a problem-are you suggesting that one should simply accept the Church’s claims in spite of reasoned doubt or disbelief?

Returning to the claim itself, it leaves great potential for abuse in the hands of the wrong person or persons. The Apostles were concerned in more than one Epistle with the problems that were cropping up in the leaders and successors appointed to churches-Paul, Peter and John all express significant concern about it.

We see examples of Apostles making mistakes and being corrected in the Scriptures.

There is also historical evidence of those in church leadership who misused their authority for simony, extortion and other abuses.

And yet these individuals have claimed their authority and invoked Tradition to justify their actions and the faithful cannot effectively protest because the theological construct of the Magisterium excludes them from being able to Reason correctly. I would agree that the claims of the wrongdoers are spurious, but that doesn’t resolve the issue that the theological environment made their attempt at evading responsibility possible.

As to your last point, when I give examples, it is to clarify what I’m saying-Pope Benedict doesn’t call me for theological discussion, so I can’t use him as an example.

You’ll recall I believe the church includes all the faithful, so while the actions of individuals may not be “official” in one sense-these people are “living epistles” of their experience within Catholicism.

As James said, it isn’t just right doctrine, but also right action. As someone on the thread said, God’s Word written in men’s hearts. If a certain belief of the church appears to be regularly producing a result in Catholics, the that belief bears a part of the responsibility for those results. Think of it as sociological theology.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Okay. So you believe Jesus gave authority to His Church? I assume you mean the Catholic Church, but if I’m wrong, please correct me. Now, using the assumption that you’re referring to the Catholic Church, let me ask you this: Dose the Church have the authority to interpret the Scriptures by the power of the Holy Spirit? In other words, can the Church say what the Bible says?

If so, then the Church must has the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to give His Church, to lead the Church into all truths, including the truths which God wishes to tell us in His Scriptures;
If not, then the Church must not have the Holy Spirit, for only the Lord who authored Scriptures can interpret Scriptures, and if the Church cannot by the power of the Holy Spirit interpret Scripture, than it cannot be the Church of Christ.

Now, here is something else to ponder: Where dose Scripture come from? The answer is: It is from the Church’s Tradition. The Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, decided which books would belong in the Bible (“the canon of Scriptures”). And how dose this constitute Sacred Tradition? Because Sacred Tradition is the teachings and authority of the Apostles; hence, the Church has the authority to say which books belong to God’s Word - in other words, the Church has the authority to protect the Sacred Scriptures, and this authority comes from the Apostles (Sacred Tradition is also known as Apostolic Tradition). Now, if Scripture comes from Tradition, than how can one say the Church cannot interpret the Scripture?

Even from a conspiracy theory point of view, this makes sense, for a conspiracy theorist would say the Church crafted the Bible in such a fashion that it conforms completely to her teachings - no more, no less.

Of course, such a conspiracy theory would be incorrect, if Christ did found the Catholic Church, for He has made her infallible, and being infallible, she cannot error in faith or morals - and certainly the Scriptures are within the scope of faith and morals. Moreover, He has given the Church His Spirit, to lead her into all the truths within the pages of Scriptures.

Some would argue against so many safeguards against error - the Holy Spirit, the bishops, etc. - citing them as weaknesses, as human attempts to keep the Scripture inerrant. However, these safeguards, far from being of human origin, are of divien origin: they are the workings of the omnipotence of God, whom uses every means possible to keep His Church free from error and full of truth.

Two things to start this discussion:

1. The Catholic church claims to be the church Christ started-I’m investigating that claim, but don’t accept it as yet.
2. What do you mean by church-I find when discussing things with catholics that the definition of “church” changes during the discussion-so when you say Christ founded the “church” what do you mean by that word?

Once we’ve clarified that we can proceed with your other points.

 

[Eucharisted]

Two things to start this discussion:

1. The Catholic church claims to be the church Christ started-I’m investigating that claim, but don’t accept it as yet.
2. What do you mean by church-I find when discussing things with catholics that the definition of “church” changes during the discussion-so when you say Christ founded the “church” what do you mean by that word?

Once we’ve clarified that we can proceed with your other points.

By “Church” I mean the Body of Christ, otherwise known as the Mystical Body of Christ, otherwise known as the body of believers of Christ, otherwise known as the cloud of witnesses, otherwise known as the communion of saints (oh, so many names!). The Church is modeled on the Holy Trinity: God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Church is Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant. Just as each Person is God, so too is each state the Church: the Church Militant is the faithful who pilgrimage to Heaven and fight the dragon (hence, we are called pilgrims or soliders of Christ), the Church Suffering is the faithful who have been saved but still need to be purged from venial sin before entering Heaven (hence, they are called the faithfully departed or holy souls in Purgatory), and the Church Triumphant is the faithful who have completed their pilgrim and triumphed over evil, who live and reign with God forever (hence they are called the elect or blessed). The triune nature of the Church is further attested by the formula “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit”. All the faithful are called saints, for we are all one in the Most Blessed Sacra-ment (Sacrament means “sacred sign” and saint means “sacred person”: it is a play on words, which shows that the Eucharist, the Body of Christ, makes the Church, which is the Body of Christ). The faithful who are canonized are given the title of Saint; some people mistake the title of Saint for the biblical word ‘saint’.

In our discussion, I will be speaking about the Catholic Church. Just as when we speak about God we mean the Trinity, so too when I speak about the Church I mean all the Church: the Militant, the Suffering, and the Triumphant. For just as God is indivisible, so is the Church. But I hope you will understand, when I speak about the Church on Earth, I will mean the Church Militant, and the Church in Purgatory, the Church Suffering, and the Church in Heaven, the Church Triumphant.

 

[Peter_J]

NS,

I have been meaning to comment on the statement in Unam Sanctum; and, seeing as you mentioned it again tonight, I guess it’s high time I do so.

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

First let me say that I cannot say with certainty whether this is an ex cathedra statement or not. Though I guess you already know that. (I can tell you that if it is an ex cathedra statement, then it is infallible as per Vatican I.)

Second, I definitely believe that the statement is correct. It follows from two premises:

• that only those “in the Church” can go to heaven (Note: By “in the Church” I do not mean “in full communion with the Pope”. I mean it in a broader sense.)
• that every person who is in the Church (regardless of whether he/she is Catholic or not) is subject to the Roman Pontiff

Ergo, the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “subject to the Roman Pontiff”.

(I am not doing any sort of mental gymnastics with the statement from Unam Sanctum; I just going with what it says.)

 

[Eucharisted]

NS,

I have been meaning to comment on the statement in Unam Sanctum; and, seeing as you mentioned it again tonight, I guess it’s high time I do so.

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

First let me say that I cannot say with certainty whether this is an ex cathedra statement or not. Though I guess you already know that. (I can tell you that if it is an ex cathedra statement, then it is infallible as per Vatican I.)

Second, I definitely believe that the statement is correct. It follows from two premises:

• that only those “in the Church” can go to heaven (Note: By “in the Church” I do not mean “in full communion with the Pope”. I mean it in a broader sense.)
• that every person who is in the Church (regardless of whether he/she is Catholic or not) is subject to the Roman Pontiff

Ergo, the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “subject to the Roman Pontiff”.

(I am not doing any sort of mental gymnastics with the statement from Unam Sanctum; I just going with what it says.)

I love your signature!

 

[Non_Serviam]

Okay. So you believe Jesus gave authority to His Church? I assume you mean the Catholic Church, but if I’m wrong, please correct me. Now, using the assumption that you’re referring to the Catholic Church, let me ask you this: Dose the Church have the authority to interpret the Scriptures by the power of the Holy Spirit? In other words, can the Church say what the Bible says?

If so, then the Church must has the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to give His Church, to lead the Church into all truths, including the truths which God wishes to tell us in His Scriptures;
If not, then the Church must not have the Holy Spirit, for only the Lord who authored Scriptures can interpret Scriptures, and if the Church cannot by the power of the Holy Spirit interpret Scripture, than it cannot be the Church of Christ.

Now, here is something else to ponder: Where dose Scripture come from? The answer is: It is from the Church’s Tradition. The Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, decided which books would belong in the Bible (“the canon of Scriptures”). And how dose this constitute Sacred Tradition? Because Sacred Tradition is the teachings and authority of the Apostles; hence, the Church has the authority to say which books belong to God’s Word - in other words, the Church has the authority to protect the Sacred Scriptures, and this authority comes from the Apostles (Sacred Tradition is also known as Apostolic Tradition). Now, if Scripture comes from Tradition, than how can one say the Church cannot interpret the Scripture?

Even from a conspiracy theory point of view, this makes sense, for a conspiracy theorist would say the Church crafted the Bible in such a fashion that it conforms completely to her teachings - no more, no less.

Of course, such a conspiracy theory would be incorrect, if Christ did found the Catholic Church, for He has made her infallible, and being infallible, she cannot error in faith or morals - and certainly the Scriptures are within the scope of faith and morals. Moreover, He has given the Church His Spirit, to lead her into all the truths within the pages of Scriptures.

Some would argue against so many safeguards against error - the Holy Spirit, the bishops, etc. - citing them as weaknesses, as human attempts to keep the Scripture inerrant. However, these safeguards, far from being of human origin, are of divien origin: they are the workings of the omnipotence of God, whom uses every means possible to keep His Church free from error and full of truth.

So now that I have your definition of Church, we can work our way through this.

“Can the Church say what the Bible says?” Using your definition of the church as the faithful, I believe yes. Do I also believe that their are certain individuals in the church who have abilities or gifts that make them better at this than the average believer? Yes. Do I believe that these people are infallible? No. That is why the Spirit is promised to the whole church, so one individual can’t lead it astray without the faithful choosing to be led astray.

*Where dose Scripture come from? The answer is: It is from the Church’s Tradition. * Actually a whole lot of Scripture existed before the church was founded-we call it the old testament. It is clear from historical evidence that Jews considered these writings to be inspired and the New Testament narratives show that Jesus and the Apostles accepted them as such also.

As for the New Testament, the “church” didn’t write it-specific individuals wrote it to address specific situations and specific groups of people. God arranged things so that the value of the writings was seen to extend beyond these people and their circumstances and they various documents were copied and traded because the faithful (the “church” in your definition) saw the spiritual value in them. Much later, individuals who occupied some leadership roles after significant changes to the leadership structure of the church had occurred, began to debate the inspiration of these documents and other leaders met to declare their opinion on which documents should be considered authoritative and inspired. They didn’t create new documents, or pull documents out of the air apart from the ones that the faithful had been using, but rather confirmed the sense of the faithful on the matter.

if Christ did found the Catholic Church, for He has made her infallible, and being infallible, she cannot error in faith or morals I don’t accept this at present. Are you saying “the faithful” never err in faith or morals or are you changing your definition of church?

Paul acknowledges his own opinion in an epistle and that opinion turns out to be wrong. Leaders sent out from James teach incorrectly on the requirements of non-Jews to be part of the church and Peter errs on this topic as well. I see a church being led “into” truth, not claiming to be there already. I believe that the faithful as a whole protects certain truths from being lost and thus there is a core of belief that remains correct no matter what. Beyond that core, the church may be mistaken in belief or practice and history shows that it has. But the Spirit is still working and the goal of all truth will be reached.

 

[Non_Serviam]

NS,

I have been meaning to comment on the statement in Unam Sanctum; and, seeing as you mentioned it again tonight, I guess it’s high time I do so.

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

First let me say that I cannot say with certainty whether this is an ex cathedra statement or not. Though I guess you already know that. (I can tell you that if it is an ex cathedra statement, then it is infallible as per Vatican I.)

Second, I definitely believe that the statement is correct. It follows from two premises:

• that only those “in the Church” can go to heaven (Note: By “in the Church” I do not mean “in full communion with the Pope”. I mean it in a broader sense.)
• that every person who is in the Church (regardless of whether he/she is Catholic or not) is subject to the Roman Pontiff

Ergo, the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “subject to the Roman Pontiff”.

(I am not doing any sort of mental gymnastics with the statement from Unam Sanctum; I just going with what it says.)

Actually, that’s only one area of conflict between Unum Sanctam and the CCC, but we’ll start there.

Let’s take your point:

• that every person who is in the Church (regardless of whether he/she is Catholic or not) is subject to the Roman Pontiff

And see what the CCC says:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Now Unum Sanctam:

Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’

The plain senses of these words mark out very clearly that they contradict each other. So the CCC would put them in the Church even though they don’t subject themselves to the Pope, and Boniface would place them outside the church.

Let’s take another.

the CCC (which quotes from Lumen Gentium):

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

**Those who, **through no fault of their own, **do not know** the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - **those too may achieve eternal salvation.**337

and Unum Sanctam:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff

Again we have a conflict between “those who…do not know” and “every human creature”. If the “we declare, we proclaim, we define” construction does signify infallibility, then the CCC is contradicting it.

One more.

Unum Sanctam:

We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords’ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

and the CCC:

1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."20

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."52

To provide additional evidence on how Unum Sanctam was interpreted by at least some in the church, here’s the articleCatholic Encyclopedia’s on it. I’m not proposing novel interpretations of the text.

Just these three examples demonstrate why a list of what is infallible and what isn’t would bring a lot more clarity and transparency to the beliefs and practices of Catholicism. Otherwise, how does one know which statements are correct and must be followed?

 

[PJM]

Non Serviam:

Here’s something to ponder about Church authority.

Authoriy, as I’m sure you’re aware, is given to someone or somethig by someone with greater authority. Now, invevitably, this would mean God is the Highest Authority, but, I do not want to get into a dicussion about God or His Authority; I’m just saying that, since all authority comes from someone higher, then there must be someone or something with eternity, infinite authority - though whether youu believe it’s God or the universe or something else, that is your opinion and I will respect it.

Now, since authority must come from something, the Church’s authority must come from something. If the Church claims its authority comes from itself - that is, that the authority of the Church proves the authority of the Church - then it would be claiming its authority is self-existent, and that would be quite a laughable claim to be making.

This is further realized when one thinks about the Church’s birth and her time in the Middle Ages. In her early years, when she was but an infant (I’m using that metaphorically), she was born into a world teeming with philosophy. It is from philosopy that we learn authoriy is not self-existent, and so, from a philosophical standpoint, the Church would be riducled. Saint Augustine, himself a philosopher, would have found a self-existent authority in the Church quite maddening, and would not have joined the Church if such a claim on authority were true. The same can be said of other philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas. In the Middle Ages, philosophy was “the next big thing” in the Church and everyone was studying it. It is interesting that no one ever challenged a notion of self-existent authority. Some could say it is because the Church surpressed those who challenged her, but this claim would go unfounded, as there is no evidence of it, nor are there any saints who testified to any sort of supression within the Church.

Returning to the young yearns of the Church, historians know that the Church came from Judaism, and the Apostles and Jesus were Jews. Now, in the face of opposition from Judaism, it would be nonsensical for the Church to claim her own authority, because the Jews and Romans alike would challenge such a claim - not to mention pagan philosophers would laugh at the Church’s authority being self-proven, and this belief could be used to harm the truth of Christianity. However, there is no known mention of such attacks on Church authority, so it would be safe to say that the Church never claimed self-proven authority.

The question is than: where did the Church get her authoriy? The answer: Jesus Christ, the God-Man. Since God alone is the Lord, He alone could make covenants with nations and peoples, so Jesus, in founding His Church, had to be God, or else the Church has no Divine Authority. If Jesus is not God, than Christianity is a fluke - but let us not get off track. Let us suppsoe that Jesus is God. So Jesus is God and Man, and His Authority is the authority of the Church. How can this be? Because the Church is His Body, as Scripture tells us. Now, not only dose the Church have Divine Authority, but, because she is the Body of Christ - and Christ is God and Man - she has human authority, ultimately, the Pope. This human authority, much like Jesus’ Humanity, is completely subject to the Divinity: the Church cannot pronounce lies or make stuff up regarding faith or morals, and God’s Spirit prevents her from such a feat, for the Spirit of truth leads the Church into all truths (the gift of infallibility).

Where dose the Pope get his authority? Well, he is the Sucessor of Peter, and Jesus gave to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. So the papal authority comes from Jesus Christ. Hence, the divine and human authority are united in the Diviniy. And since God is the Supreme Authority, we now know where the Church’s authority comes from. And since Scripture tells us the Church is the Body of Christ and Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and He would send the Spirit of Truth to lead the Church into all truths, the authority of the Church is based on Scripture. And since Scripture is divinely inspired, it is God Himself who speaks on behalf of the Church. In brief, the proof of the authority of the Catholic Church is in Scripture, the Word of God.

(c)

:tiphat: :clapping:

I wonder?

Is this too logical to believed? NOT! Great post, thanks.